Revision as of 17:07, 21 July 2007

Why is the article ALREADY locked?! I'd love to contribute to this article, I have plenty of references, and since I'm the one who started the debate, I think it's reasonable to ask it be opened. Wumps 16:14, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure any of the listed statutes really has anything to do with someone editing an open wiki, but of course im not a lawyer and the boss it, so he must know.SumsUp 08:28, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

That would be your big mistake, SumsUp. Take a look at the link I added to the article. Many people have been successfully prosecuted for things the "Internet Community" always swear are legal. It takes more than a clever turn of phrase in some post to avoid charges these days. And of course, conviction is the least of it. A couple of years of investigation, retaining and paying for Attorney's will break most Internet Vandals long before they are actually convicted. --Sysop-TK/MyTalk 14:02, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't 18 USC § 2701 specify ""unauthorized access to information stored on a computer"? - Also looking at the code, it seems to be more
specific, referring to access through a "electronic communication service" to "a wire or electronic communication", suggesting "unauthorized access to electronic communication", would be a better summary. For reference, I got the text of this from [1]. I'm not sure what "a wire" means in this context though. Bronzefinger 14:21, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Could someone correct the grammatical error in the first sentence please? Ferret 17:24, 21 July 2007 (EDT)